Redstate

By Boddington Posted in Republicans — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Just before the Easter recess, Rep. Jerry Lewis sank the budget resolution because it included a “rainy day” fund to budget for emergencies…or so he said. Many believed that Lewis was merely using the rainy day fund as a pretext to oppose earmark reforms. It turns out those suspicions were on the mark.

After postponing consideration of the budget until after the recess to mollify Chairman Lewis, House Leaders made a savvy move by scheduling the lobbying reform package—which was always supposed to be the vehicle for earmark reform—for this week and save the budget for next week. And so tomorrow, the House of Representatives is set to consider the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act (H.R. 4975).

The schedule has served to flush Lewis out, forcing him to either swallow the earmark reforms or risk taking down a lobbying bill the GOP majority believes is vital to addressing the numerous corruption headlines in the press. It is now apparent that Lewis is willing to take that chance. He and his committee members are threatening to vote against both the lobbying package (which would attract Democrat votes) and far more significantly the procedural rule governing its consideration (because it would be a party line vote). According to a source, there are numerous appropriators that have already informed the Blunt whip operation that they are going to side with Lewis, vote against the rule, and risk being thrown off the whip team. More below.

Credit Jerry Lewis with some street smarts here though. He is no longer taking on earmark reform head-on. Instead of trying to sell why he is against earmark reform per se (identifying earmarks, the Members requesting them, and allowing them to be challenged), he is now tacking to the right of conservatives by broadening the scope of earmark reform. He now claims to support reform, but he wants it to apply to all types of bills. In short, Lewis is demanding the perfect to kill the good. In an email to staff, his Committee staff writes:

Republican Members of the Committee have concluded a 90-minute discussion on earmark reform. Committee Members are seeking to strengthen the lobbying reform bill by making earmark reform comprehensive. Committee Members are unified in their position that any earmark reform proposal under consideration by the House must be comprehensive and apply to appropriating and authorizing committees including Ways and Means. Further, Committee Members are united to vote "no" on the rule to the lobbying reform bill unless earmark reform applies to all committees. The Committee's position is simple: "Earmark reform that does not address the Bridge to Nowhere is not real reform." Attached is a document that outlines the GOP Committee Member-supported position.

In the document referenced in the email, the Committee continues:

The Committee's proposal does not change the proposed procedural restrictions proposed by the RSC it simply makes them stronger by applying them universally. The new procedural changes are poorly constructed and onerous but they are acceptable as long as they apply to all earmarks. Simply stated, the Committee's proposal melds more stringent procedural hurdles to earmarking in the House bill with the Senate's more comprehensive application of earmark reform. In exchange for the Committee's improvements to the bill, the Committee will work to pass the lobbying reform bill and FY07 budget resolution.

Sounds great doesn’t it? Be suspicious. Prior to recess, Lewis was completely opposed to earmark reform in all its shapes and sizes. Now, he wants a more comprehensive approach? Is it too cynical now to assume that Lewis is calculating that if earmark reform applies to say the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (highway bills) and the Ways and Means Committee (tax bills) he will now have attracted enough opponents into his coalition to ruin the reform effort?

The true champions of earmark reform—Reps. Jeff Flake and John Shadegg—certainly think not. For instance, even though his original legislation would cover all types of earmarks, Flake characterizes Lewis’s attempt as a “poison pill.” Conservatives know that reforming the appropriations process is a suitable first step—since the true “corruption earmarks” (Cunningham and Mollohan) were on appropriations bills. These bills are passed every year and are considered “must pass” by Congress since the government shuts down otherwise. Not so with highway bills and tax bills. They are willing to tackle those earmarks later.

House Leaders met with Chairman Lewis today but were unable to reason with him; he and the Committee are still dug in. Tomorrow is expected to be high drama on the floor of the House with a good ol’ fashioned show down. At this moment, Leadership is still bringing the bill to the floor for a vote, and Lewis will either come to heel or bring it down. That’s his choice. But the GOP majority may very well ride on what he decides and whether Leadership lets him get away with it.